What are the conflicts between atheism and science?

that reminds me of the commercial with the father dipping his sons feet into that goo to form socks on his feet..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is the conflict between science and atheism.

Science or secularization is the praiseworthy contribution of modern man which avoids the primitive temptation to explain all mysterrious and unknown forces in terms of spirits, gods, or some other supernatural power. Due to life and of the fact that the futursecularization, modern man is aware of his mastery over life and of the fact that the future of the world is, in a vaery real sense, in his hands.

Atheism Promotes secularism. Secularism is something quite different. Secularism is an attitude or philosophy of life which holds that only secular values are real and that all religious values are nothing more than superstition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, tell us.

Source please.
The first definition I came across is:

http://www.answers.com/topic/secularism
Nothing about "holding that only secular values are real and that all religious values are nothing more than superstition", simply that those considerations should play no part in certain fields (at worst) and indifference to the question at best.

Does science concern itself with civil affairs? Education?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Incorrect.

What you're describing are cases of evidence, whereupon one moves to infer from there, the assertion for its purported contrary.

In other words, 'negative evidence' only can refer to a procedural assertion when one is working within the scope of a case of natural contraries; i.e., when the Law of Excluded Middle applies. Outside of the scope of pure logic, such cases do not obtain.

 

Same thing applies.

Assuming a purely disjunctive relationship (which rarely applies outside of pure logic..), one can only validly deny once case via the assertion of the contrary.

 

Only self-contradiction can work for such invisible things, and it works. See the science/religion ongoing thread.

 

Science is neutral. It has only become secular because nothing supernatural has yet been shown to exist. It is not philosophically opposed to considering the supernatural.

Secularism means that the governing of society and public institutions should be religion-free, so that religion or lack of it can prosper in freedom.

 

Wrong on both counts. Atheism need not support secularism - it could instead support militant atheism. Stalin's purges of the church in the USSR were not "secularism." That atheists in predominantly religious societies tend to favor secularism, and not so much militant atheism, is a consequence of said atheists being a marginalized minority.

Secondly, secularism does not derrogate religious value and belief as such (that would be atheism, in point of fact). Secularism is the belief that individuals should relate to one another, and to society, and to the state, as fundamentally equal, and not as tokens of their respective faiths. Which is to say that secularism is typically more about ensuring that multiple religious faiths can co-exist and flourish in one state/society, than derrogating religion as such. The primary motivation for secularism in the United States, for example, has always been to protect religions from state interference. Secularism is only inherently opposed to fundamentalist modes of religion that demand unequal sectarian relations between individuals, society and the state. For everyone else, it's no problem - which is why large majorities of the people who support secularism are themselves religious.

 

Stalin IMO was not really an atheist because he believed he was God!

 

I wonder how God proves to himself that he wasn't created.

 

Regarding previous post I find communists who are athiests tend to treat their leaders very similiar to how religious people treat whichever God they believe in. USSR and N Korea are good examples of how the leaders are omnipresent through idols of themselves and through state media.

 

It's a little more forced-upon though, isn't it?

 

There is if we apply logic,.. but the classic theist excuse is that God is not subject to our view of logic. It's a bogus excuse, given they have deduced his existence using some form of flawed logic in the first place.

 

Believing we are God, is the last line of atheism.
Theism, is the belief in God.

jan.

 

Lies.

 

Love the lack of philosophical reasoning.

LESS = MORE

jan.

 

Self-contradictory.
As you yourself said:

Believing (note the word) that we are god (note that word too) cannot be atheism.
All it does is disagree with your particular interpretation of what/ who god is.

 

Stop mumbling Jan.

 

Ah, the irony of the choice of the sought object - a sock!

They say there are no Freudian slips.

 

Which would mean something like

"There is God."
vs.
"There is no God."

-?